SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
January 12, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

It’s the guns, stupid

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

You want to know what I blame for the assassination attempt in Tuscon and the death of six others?

Well it’s not conservatives, at least in the way many others are blaming them.

I don’t think this Jared Loughner cat was affected one way or another by conservatives or liberals or by “vitriol” in the public square. Sure he had Marx and Hitler in his reading list, but he counted Ayn Rand as a favorite too, just like our former Chairman of the Federal Reserve. His political beliefs are too crazy to pin to one side or the other. His fondness for strange syllogisms and his beliefs that The Man was keeping us down with totalitarian grammar and syntax rules have to be among the strangest conspiracy theories out there (trust me, I’ve done my fair share of conspiracy theory reading, and I went to Catholic school with strict nuns who taught grammar the old fashioned way!)

A guy like this can buy a gun in America

No, what I blame is our society’s crazy admiration for guns. Without a gun, Loughner would have just been one more crazy man with a sandwich board shouting profanities in a public park. Without a gun and a 30 round clip -which is apparently legal to buy in Arizona- Loughner would have just been one more crank in the proud tradition of American cranks.

With a gun, Loughner inflicted unimaginable horror in Tuscon.

No wait, check that. It wasn’t unimaginable at all. Just three years ago, another mentally ill person blasted away at innocent people, only Cheung So Whi’s body count was nearly three dozen at Virginia Tech. And then there was San Diego, Paducah, Columbine, a whole series of workplace shootings, and more. Tens of thousands die each year in this country from gunshot wounds, either self-inflicted or by the hands of another. Even in our own LA County, the top killer of young African American and Latino men is homicide, much of it by guns. The death toll from gun-on-person violence in America far outstrips the number of people killed on 9/11, and yet we all just accept this reality.

The only thing that distinguishes Loughner from our recent history of mass shootings is that he targeted a Congresswoman. Had he just blasted away at half a dozen shoppers inside the Safeway, this story would already be off the front page. We are so desensitized to mass shootings and gun violence, it literally takes an assassination attempt to get our attention.

So yeah, I blame the guns. I blame our ineffective gun control laws and our ineffective mental health programs. I blame gun show loopholes (like the kind that allowed Cheung So Whi to buy his guns), I blame politicians for giving in to the bullying NRA. I blame our sick culture for its glorification of violence and the way in which we cheer for war abroad and act shocked when the violence comes home.

Comments (136)

  1. ScottJanuary 12, 2011 at 8:56 am
    I’m with you on this one Jeff. Pepole are turning this into a left-right political issue, but this guy was clearly a wingnut with an obession with Rep Giffords. Every day wackos like him are purchasing guns and ammo.
  2. JammerJanuary 17, 2011 at 1:31 am
    So we outlaw guns, what next? You think these suicide bombers are using guns? They’re killing and maiming far more then guns.
  3. Fred ButlerJanuary 12, 2011 at 8:59 am
    what I blame is our society’s crazy admiration for guns. So now guns have mind control powers? Really? I thought they were an inanimate object.
  4. JeffJanuary 12, 2011 at 9:09 am
    strawman
  5. Fred ButlerJanuary 12, 2011 at 9:24 am
    How exactly? It may be helpful for you to know what that means before you make such a charge.
  6. JeffJanuary 12, 2011 at 9:27 am
    I never conferred sentience on guns. You’re putting up a caricature my argument, just so you can knock it down in your typically arrogant, insufferable way. Ergo, strawman.
  7. Fred ButlerJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:25 am
    Jeff writes, I never conferred sentience on guns. You’re putting up a caricature my argument, just so you can knock it down in your typically arrogant, insufferable way Your caricature is of a city boy who has not been taught critical thinking. You suggest that if there was more gun control, or people didn’t have access to them, or the NRA was outlawed, or whatever, such events would not happen. There are millions upon millions of law abiding gun owners who have never, and will never, use their guns in any type of crime, yet you suggest these millions upon millions of gun owners should shackle themselves with more legalism because of what a self-consumed nihilist did, or what gang bangers do to themselves. So how again is my objection a strawman?
  8. MikeJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:31 am
    Is there a greater troll on this site than Fred Butler?
  9. PetzJanuary 12, 2011 at 1:51 pm
    Fred has an incredible mind and intellect.
  10. JeffJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:39 am
    Now you’re moving the goal-posts. You said I was arguing that guns had “mind-control” powers. When I called you on your BS, you changed the substance of your criticism. I hope the sermons you deliver at your church don’t take so many twists and turns. It’s hard to keep up.
  11. NateJanuary 12, 2011 at 9:28 am
    How is it not. If you don’t want the brush off, At least deal with his argument. Society’s admiration of guns is what he said…
  12. IHeartSCVJanuary 12, 2011 at 9:31 am
    We’ve seen how your line of reasoning goes with planes–first it was no pocket knives; then no fingernail clippers; then no cigarette lighters; then checks of shoes; then no liquids; then full body scanners; and we’re waiting for a what’s next. With guns, banning semi-automatic weapons would probably prevent some mass murders; but then so too might banning all guns; and so too might banning all access to poisonous substances; and so too might banning access to all explosive substances; and so too might banning large trucks that can be driven into crowds…the list goes on. In both cases, I see absolutely NO solution: people will always find other ways if they really want to kill others. And once they’ve figured out a new way, it gets copied by other sickos and we move retroactively to address it while people devise yet new ways to wreak havoc. The only safeguard that might have worked, long ago, was smaller towns and slower lives where people knew those they did business with and wouldn’t let a boy like Loughner have a gun because something in his head ain’t right.
  13. JeffJanuary 12, 2011 at 9:38 am
    And yet we do ban other public health threats, like selling cigarettes to children, or allowing people to drive while intoxicated, or allowing people to use prescription drugs without a physician’s note. Do some people still find a way around that? Sure. But we make an attempt to govern and limit such behaviors. With guns -which should be seen as a public health threat- we make very few limitations. In fact, we celebrate them. Some say the solution to gun violence is…more guns! Nevertheless I find your folksy last sentence very chuckle-worthy.
  14. CCJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:12 am
    Worthy of the Big Brother Utopia that you seek…at least until YOUR rights are infringed on.
  15. JeffJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:21 am
    What’s “Big Brother Utopia” about preserving public health? Weren’t you alive during Love Canal? Do you think it’s a good thing when people inhale smoke from others? Why should your right to smoke/shoot/pollute negatively effect me?
  16. CCJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:11 am
    Excellent Post IHeart. Blame the person, not the thing.
  17. MikeJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:24 am
    Six people were killed and 14 more were wounded. There are plenty of reasonable restrictions that could have been in place to have lessened the scope of tragedy.
  18. IHeartSCVJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:48 am
    Speculation is nice, but not useful. For example, I could speculate that were all guns banned in America, he could still get a can of gasoline and a lighter and inflict huge amounts of damage in a tight, crowded space. There’s always another weapon. There are evil acts that will happen regardless of what we do–this was one of them.
  19. MikeJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:58 am
    Easier means of killing people kill more people than more difficult ways. We might not have stopped this guy from doing something awful, but the difference between hurting or killing someone and shooting 20 people is quite a bit more than a rounding error.
  20. CCJanuary 12, 2011 at 1:52 pm
    Didn’t Timothy McVeigh use fertilizer? Which should we ban, the fertilizer or Ryder trucks?
  21. HermanJanuary 13, 2011 at 5:12 am
    CC, I was thinking the same thing. Using Jeff’s logic, we should blame planes for 9-11. It’s foolish to think that if this crazy person couldn’t get a gun he wouldn’t have used a car. What would have been nice is if the sherriff had thought to have a couple of deputies at the event beforehand. “Blame the gun”, you have got to be kidding.
  22. CCJanuary 13, 2011 at 2:00 pm
    Tru dat
  23. john adamsJanuary 13, 2011 at 4:25 pm
    I am really interested to hear your example of “Plenty of reasonable restrictions”
  24. OlenkaJanuary 12, 2011 at 8:59 am
    I don’t blame guns. I blame those who advocate violence and hate that makes people think it’s okay for them to take the lives of others. I blame the lack of education and compassion people have when dealing with those who they don’t agree with. I blame people who plant false information in the minds of those who do not know how to think for themselves. No I don’t think it’s guns. It’s more than that.
  25. ScottJanuary 12, 2011 at 9:15 am
    OK so guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But how do these people get their hands on guns? That is the issue. You can smother people with education and compassion but at the end of the day, there will always be a fringe of society that will not listen. Although they may be hard to identify, we clearly need better gun control laws. Especially in states like AZ, Texas, etc.
  26. NateJanuary 12, 2011 at 9:49 am
    It is an attitude problem. We have a polarization machine in country that continually sends out messages which divide our people. We no longer care about our neighbor because he is republican, democrat, muslim, christian, black, white. Illegals aliens Us vs them. Guns are no longer just a nessecity to sustain life i.e. Hunting or recreational activity. We need our guns to protect us from all these groups out to get us. Most people just wallow in their victimhood where they tell themselves over and over again that someone is out to get them. Eventuall that message hits the wrong ears and the Timothy McVeins or Jared Loughners think they will save everyone. These people believe they are heroes, Timothy McVeigh thought that and Loughners thinks it too why do you think he has that creepy smile. More guns or less guns this problem is not going away, because it is not a gun problem it is an attitude problem.
  27. OlenkaJanuary 12, 2011 at 9:50 am
    If someone wants a gun, they will find a way to get one. Even when gun control laws are bleeding out of our ears.
  28. spineflower2January 12, 2011 at 9:09 am
    In the ’60s the left resorted to violence following hate speech. Today the right does the same. Or is it? In the ’60s the left blew up buildings. Today the right is killing people. In the ’60s the cry was “stop the war” and today it’s “reload and take them out.” Also, I find it interesting that the right, so willing to stifle free speech when they don’t like it (book banning, control of TV programming and the arts, etc), and who decries that seeing sex or violence on TV causes it in real life, now back 180 degrees away from their own position now that the same alleged cause-effect argument is levied upon THEM.
  29. SCVFanJanuary 12, 2011 at 9:37 am
    “today the right is KILLING PEOPLE?” What an ignorant and ridiculous statement. You should seriously be ashamed of your stupidty.
  30. spineflower2January 12, 2011 at 10:06 am
    So was it a leftist Obama commie who shot things up in Tucson?
  31. DubiousJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:48 am
    I don’t think anyone has been able to establish the shooter’s politics. Purportedly, one of his favorite books was the Communist Manifesto. But he had such a mixture of reading material in his possession that labeling the man seems to be an exercise in futility. Why have we been rushing to label him politically anyway? I seem to recall that after the Fort Hood shootings we were continually being cautioned to step back, take deep breaths, and not make any judgments.
  32. spineflower2January 12, 2011 at 11:28 am
    Who was in Palins’ his crosshairs as he pulled the trigger?
  33. SCVFanJanuary 12, 2011 at 1:39 pm
    Wow. The politics of the crazy nut job doesn’t MATTER. He’s all over the map and can’t be boxed into any category. By try to do so….you sound foolish. He was a nut job. End of story.
  34. ACJanuary 13, 2011 at 8:53 am
    I agree with him being a nut job. He needed help and it doesn’t look like anyone, such as family, attempted to get him the help he needed. He was living in a dream world and didn’t want to live his daily life the same. He will be saved by his insanity by the very government that he depises. Sad!
  35. Kevin D. KorenthalJanuary 12, 2011 at 9:33 am
    “Today the right is killing people.” You can’t back that claim up spineflower. But I’d love to see you try. Jeff, you live in a fantasy land. Even before the modern gun was invented, human fascination with the sport of the kill, the desire to hunt and consume ones own catch and the need for a man to defend his family had insured that guns would become a prevalent fixture in society. Pandora’s box was opened long ago. It makes no sense to wonder what it would be like in a world without guns because wackadoos like this would have used some other form of violence to perpetrate their crime. I think Sarah Palin said it best in her statement today: President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.
  36. SFC PerezJanuary 12, 2011 at 9:53 am
    If Sarah Palin wants some advice on how it feels to be judged as group by the actions of a few crazy people, maybe she and her cronies can ask the American Muslim community that they have demonized for so long.
  37. NateJanuary 12, 2011 at 9:54 am
    Good Reagan quote Kevin. That is about it.
  38. PoliticoJanuary 12, 2011 at 6:52 pm
    Kevin, Sarah Palin doesn’t have an original thought in her head. She is utterly devoid of self-reflection or introspection. Her statement is nothing more than a misguided attempt to turn a tragedy into an attack on her. It’s all about her (at least in her mind). She hasn’t the slightest ability to take a step back and consider that perhaps her actions (along with many others on the left and right) have contributed to the poisonous political atmosphere in this country. Gunsights on congressional districts? Second amendment solutions? Yeah, right. So Kevin, hows that hatey, killy, reloady, crosshairsy thing working out for ya?
  39. JayceJanuary 13, 2011 at 8:50 am
    Pride destroyed Magincia!
  40. SCVFanJanuary 12, 2011 at 9:34 am
    So Jeff….are you saying if we eliminate and outlaw guns our crime rate would significantly drop? Just want to make sure I’m reading this correctly. That seems to be your underlining statement. What about in the UK where now people have turned to using knives for their violence. They are considering regulating knifes too. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article603869.ece The objects are NOT the problem. The low-life, degenerate, crazy, and irresponsible HUMANS are the problem. Tougher crime, death penalty and harsher enforcement would do wonders for idiots who make objects dangerous.
  41. MikeJanuary 12, 2011 at 9:59 am
    Yes of course, if this guy had a knife, he would have stabbed 19 people in a the course of a few moments.
  42. JayceJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:32 am
    Death penalty is not a deterrent for criminals. People that are crazy don’t give a rat’s behind about penalties. That’s a whole nuther bag of worms though.
  43. SCVFanJanuary 12, 2011 at 1:36 pm
    Yeah – but we could certainly get rid of them faster.
  44. SFC PerezJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:01 am
    Our society as a whole glorifies violence on the highest level but yet freaks out when you see a breast on TV. Our children are engrossed in playing video games where they are desensitized to killing on a daily basis and yet we wonder why when all the planets align that these types of horrors occur? I as a parent am involved with my children and have attempted to mold them with the correct values from Day 1. I know that is not perfect and reflect back to my youth and the idiotic things I did. And from what I read, this murderer in Arizona had parents who were involved as well, even into his adult years. Months from now if we try to focus on those people who make “threatening comments” or other statements of concern, there will be those who will come out and say we are going to extremes. It seems you can’t win with everyone in this country no matter which direction you take.
  45. OlenkaJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:03 am
    The bottom line is, guns are here to stay in this country. We have lots of gun control measures in place, but like all gun control, it barely works. It won’t ever stop determined criminals from achieving their desired goal. Unfortunately, only law abiding citizens are subject to gun control legislation. If it wasn’t for the gun, this guy in Arizona might have built a bomb. Or maybe drive a semi truck into the crowd. It’s not the method that people kill people. It’s the motive.
  46. SFC PerezJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:05 am
    But I still wonder if he owned his weapons legally or were they bought on the street.
  47. OlenkaJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:07 am
    Does it matter? He wanted a gun. He found a way to get one. Legal or illegal.
  48. SFC PerezJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:14 am
    It does matter because there were major warning signs of mental illness or instability and if he owned a weapon legally, maybe it should’ve been confiscated. Maybe this is all Monday morning quarterbacking but just some things I would analyze to prevent possible future problems.
  49. SFC PerezJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:15 am
    And yes, its hard or impossible to prevent an illegal purchase, I know.
  50. OlenkaJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:28 am
    The standard NICS check reports individuals with mental health issues as ineligible. If someone had reported this guy, he wouldn’t have been able to buy a gun from a dealer. That being said, AZ, and many other states, have no NICS check requirement for private party sales.
  51. SFC PerezJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:42 am
    Scary. I guess the question is, by law can they remove a weapon from someone if they are showing signs of mental instability or making threats? I understand future purchases but what about current weapons owned.
  52. NateJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:12 am
    Are you kidding? That would be so arbitrary. You know how many people unstable people own guns?
  53. SFC PerezJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:27 am
    I’m sure alot, even some right here in the SCV. We have a system in place to take away someone’s Drivers License if they don’t meet requirements, why not a weapon?
  54. NateJanuary 12, 2011 at 12:20 pm
    Good luck with that…
  55. Your Web GuruJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:31 am
    From what I read, he purchased his gun legally as he did not have a record that revealed his mental state nor was he convicted of any crimes that would have prevented him from owning a firearm in the state of Arizona.
  56. NateJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:06 am
    If I remember right his gun was purchased legally, just like the Virginia Tech guy. He was turned away while trying to purchase ammo that day from one Walmart because he was acting weird, but he found another to sell to him.
  57. MikeJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:28 am
    Not everyone who wishes to have a gun has the means to obtain one on the black market, for one. Secondly, we have a thriving black market because of the ability of individuals to make large purchases in areas where gun control is nearly non-existent. It’s what arms criminals in the United States and it’s what arms cartels in Mexico. Mexico would not have so many guns if not for the proliferation of guns in the United States and in many countries around the world, obtaining a firearm is a very difficult thing to do. I don’t have a specific recommendation, but there are moveable pieces in play. But more to the point, this wasn’t the work of a gangster. This isn’t someone who had others uses for a gun or would appear to have connections to people that do. This is a crazy young adult. Somehow he got spinning in this direction and it was unbelievably easy for him to convert his urge into action. He walked into a store and bought a gun, without countering any resistance at all. He was able to buy a massive clip for this gun without countering any resistance at all. Had this clip been smaller, the damage would have been much less. Had it been larger, the damage would have been greater. Something can be done about that. It’s very much the method. Had the method been constrained, we would not have so many victims here. His motivations were not rational. A person with rational motivations is going to persevere through more, because they have an actual, tangible incentive.
  58. SFC PerezJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:12 am
    But Jeff I do take offense when you correlate going to war and the violence that occurred in Arizona. Our Nation has been in wars since it’s inception and it doesnt translate into increased violence or crime here. I also don’t agree that the American people are “cheering” for war either simply because they are supporting the troops. This leads right into the article I emailed you the other day and how there is a major divide between the American people and what they know of the military because the percentage of those who served now is well below what it was in previous conflicts. The violence you are seeing now in this country has nothing to do with wars and even though it was a short blurb by you(and maybe not intended as such), to me it reflects what I heard growing up the Son of a Hippy.
  59. Josh PremakoJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:14 am
    Isn’t it Obama’s fault? Oh wait, it’s Palin’s fault, right? Or….wait….(gets easily confused)…. Ok, but seriously, I haven’t had enough caffeine to get really involved in this at the moment, but when it comes to guns, yes, people of ill-intent will always find a way to do bad things. That said, outside of military/law enforcement is there a reason someone should be able to easily obtain things like a 30-round magazine for a handgun?
  60. SFC PerezJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:18 am
    No, people dont need that much ammunition unless they are in said fields or if we have a zombie invasion. But you will get the “Right to Bear Arms” arguments even though at that time they had single shot muskets. I think even though you can doesnt mean you should.
  61. Josh PremakoJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:27 am
    Bazinga! Nail, head, hit.
  62. Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:53 am
    I grew up hunting (although I no longer do so) and was trained in gun safety from an early age, I believe in “the right to bear arms” and the ability to provide for one’s family through legal hunting. All of that said I do not believe that the founding fathers meant to protect the right to individually possess some of the insane guns that people claim that right encompasses. I am a reasonable person with the ability to look at the spirit of a law or statement and not just try to pin someone down based on semantics and I think that Thomas Jefferson himself would have crapped his pants had he seen some of the semi-automatic weaponry being protected under this argument. Gun control may not prevent people from killing one another but it will most definitely make it harder for them to take out a crowd of people so quickly. This kid may have been able to still run up and stab her but some of the other deaths might have been prevented. Those who argue the right to bear arms to such extreme levels come off as silly at best, and lacking any sort of common sense at worst.
  63. Your Web GuruJanuary 12, 2011 at 12:05 pm
    The right to bear arms came out of the fact that, during the French-Indian war, the British government did not allow locals to muster and protect themselves against invasion….an example of big government at its finest which resulted in the death of a lot of unprotected citizens by French and Indian invaders. From that perspective, it is as important an amendment as all the others with regard to our freedom to not only express ourselves, but to protect ourselves. I do not own a gun, nor have I ever wanted to, but it is a right guaranteed to us via the Constitution, and we as a nation should understand the ramifications of glorifying violence as a form of entertainment, rather than providing citizens with proper perspective as to what the responsibility of this particular freedom entails.
  64. Timothy Myers SRJanuary 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm
    I don’t think that is historically accurate. (French and Indian War reference.)
  65. SFC PerezJanuary 12, 2011 at 4:01 pm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
  66. Your Web GuruJanuary 12, 2011 at 4:35 pm
    It was referenced in a recent History Channel documentary.
  67. cashJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:41 am
    Suggesting that prohibiting guns will stop crazy people for filing, is like suggesting building a fence will stop illegal immigration.
  68. Josh PremakoJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:54 am
    It won’t. But just because gun control “won’t stop crazy people” doesn’t mean it’s not an issue we need to tackle.
  69. cashJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:07 am
    What is the point? The issue goes no where. Do we take guns away from people in the military. There are crazy people there too. It was not that long ago the guy shot and killed several innocent soldiers. I believe that no matter how difficult we make it to acquire a gun, that won’t stop people from having them and using them to kill. Jeff uses the it is illegal for kids to have cigarettes, but he falls to mention that that has not stopped kids from getting smokes.
  70. SFC PerezJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:36 am
    In the military we are constantly being screened for mental health problems in advance as well as during one’s treatment. If one is put into a category of potentially doing harm to themself or others, their weapons are taken away. Both military issued and personal. No system is 100% perfect but how often do you hear about incidents like the one at Ft Hood happening with us, an organization that deals with weapons daily?
  71. cashJanuary 12, 2011 at 12:49 pm
    The point is that guns will be available no matter how hard you try to produce a different outcome. I don’t favor guns, but beleive making them illegal in an attempt to stop killing, is a waste of time. How would you propose to round up all the millions of guns that are out there? Remember the the guy that was shoting people at random some years back? He used a rifle.
  72. SFC PerezJanuary 12, 2011 at 4:07 pm
    You create a law whereas having certain weapons, not all, are illegal and people have a set time to turn them in voluntarily. After said date if you are caught with these weapons or accessories you can be charged with a Federal crime. And I dont believe all weapons should be banned, just the semi-automatic ones that civilians have no business owning, similar to the previous fully automatic ones. And yes rifles, to include .22 caliber and pellet, can kill.
  73. NateJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:18 am
    Hasn’t it already been tackled?
  74. cashJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:44 am
    Is there a limit on the number of hand guns one can own? Not sure limiting the number of bullets in a clip will help much. The guy is crazy and he was bent on killing. Would he not have found another way to kill? Jared looks like the guy on the Adams family.
  75. Kevin D. KorenthalJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:09 am
    Once againsuggesting that punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of deranged lunatics is in itself insane. The mandatory full body massage by airport screeners is another example of how the innocent get to be inconvenienced because of the predilections of murderers. I beg of everyone to please think through the idea of taking guns away from everyone because it might reduce the scope of violence that a few madmen might perpetrate. We have much more to lose by losing our right to have guns than we do from the suns them self.
  76. NateJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:17 am
    What is your position on the ground zero mosque? Kevin.
  77. SFC PerezJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:39 am
    One shouldnt lose their right to own a weapon but the common sense argument is does Joe Citizen need a 30 rd clip or an AK47?
  78. Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:56 am
    The answer is no, no they don’t. It is absurd to argue that the founding fathers had anything of the sort in mind when they gave us the right to bear arms.
  79. Bill ReynoldsJanuary 12, 2011 at 12:27 pm
    Yeah well, they didn’t know about social security, medicare, Obamacare and a host of other entitlements either.
  80. Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogJanuary 12, 2011 at 5:45 pm
    What a completely BS response Mr. Reynolds but I’ve come to expect nothing less. The fact is that people make it sound as though our founding fathers adamantly desired for them to have the right to own semi automatic weapons. Those other issues you brought up did not come about by someone overstating the intents of the founding fathers. While they knew that society and programs would evolve I personally do not believe that they had semi-automatic weapons in mid when they established the right to bear arms. Unlike you, I am willing to acknowledge that as my opinion rather than stating it as gospel truth.
  81. Bill ReynoldsJanuary 12, 2011 at 7:23 pm
    How the hell would they have known about automatic weapons or all that B.S. liberalism has stuck us with?
  82. Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogJanuary 14, 2011 at 3:30 pm
    Exactly Mr. Reynolds, that is the point. I sincerely doubt that the right to bear arms was ever intended to be some blanket statement about whatever piece of damage inducing arm cannon a person could get their hands on… and yet, Ultra conservatives like yourself tout the right to bear arms as if they did intend for there to never be any limitations placed on them regardless.
  83. Josh PremakoJanuary 12, 2011 at 3:03 pm
    This has nothing to do with “punishing” the American people. Just because someone might want and have the right to put a Browning .50 caliber on their lifted pickup truck and drive around their property shooting up rusted-out old Dodge Darts doesn’t mean they should be able to. Just because someone might want a 30-round magazine for a handgun, but have absolutely no reason to, doesn’t mean they should be able to. This is all ancillary to what happened in Arizona. A determined evildoer will always find a way. But these are the kind of things that ought to provoke discussion of issues such as gun control. And asking “How will we ever enforce that?” or “What about all the guns out there already?” is too easy a way out of addressing the issue.
  84. lvogelJanuary 12, 2011 at 12:55 pm
    Colin Goddard is a survivor of the Virginia Tech massacre where the gunman killed 32 people. This 25 year old man was shot 4 times. He was brought up with guns; shot guns at firing ranges and as a hunter. However this young man believes there should be more control. He has helped make the documentary “Living for 32″, http://www.livingfor32.com/ which debutes next month at the Sundace Film Festival. What I find probably the most shocking is how easy it was for him to obtain assault rifles. At one location, he didn’t even show his I.D. There is money to be made for these sellers and once the gun is out of their control and in someone elses, it doesn’t seem to matter; the buck was made! My son has been wanting me to go out with him target shooting. I have said no mainly because I don’t own a gun, so why should I. He feels I will get a ‘respect’ for the gun, but again, why should I? I’ve never owned one, nor will I choose to in the future. Even if a law was passed that would allow people to openly carry guns, I would choose not to. If people want to own guns for protection and they feel scared enough in their lives to require a gun, then more power to them. If it helps them sleep at night knowing that they have a gun by their side then fine. If a person hunts for food and a gun is their only option, then they should eat. I do have a problem with the ‘game’ of hunting however. I can’t believe that people enjoy killing animals for sport. To me, it’s violence, plan and simple. Guns are an easy way to kill someone. The victim(s) of gun violence have no way to fight back. There are many intelligent, sane people that own guns; I don’t worry about them. I worry about those that are out of touch in some way and are able to obtain a gun (easily) to kill. We need tougher regulations for obtaining guns.
  85. MikeJanuary 12, 2011 at 1:31 pm
    oh no! it’s back
  86. PetzJanuary 12, 2011 at 1:57 pm
    Things really started to come apart when they took prayer and God out of the public schools. But we will hear Eric Holder pray tonight. Go figure.
  87. NateJanuary 12, 2011 at 4:34 pm
    Yeah then they let the blacks go to school with the whites… The good ol’ days.
  88. Your Web GuruJanuary 12, 2011 at 8:17 pm
    Petz. Your non-sequiters are beginning to worry me.
  89. Mike MJanuary 15, 2011 at 2:26 pm
    My kid prays at his public school – what exactly is your problem? This continual trotting out of the “God and prayer have been banned in public schools” argument by the right blows me away, because it is patently false. What has been banned is your ability to force everyone to celebrate your religion exactly the way you do. If you choose to pray, you still have that right, and if others want to join you, they can as well. You just aren’t allowed to stand in front of an assembly and act as if you are the arbiter of religion. I don’t see how being respectful of others makes us godless, particularly when urns what God tells us to do.
  90. AlpinerJanuary 12, 2011 at 2:01 pm
    The real issue is that this man is mentally ill and was identified as such by many people. But not professionals. Why not? I think this nation must begin to look at all the funding cuts that have been made to state mental health programs and begin to re-evaluate priorities. Yes funds are short, but we need to find ways to identify these whackos and get them help before it is too late. Surely there has to be a way to get more mental health funding without raising taxes. These shootings again point out how critically important these are to a free society.
  91. JeffJanuary 12, 2011 at 2:26 pm
    Wow, Alpiner criticizing Ronald Reagan? ” Also during his governorship, Reagan dismantled the public psychiatric hospital system, advocating instead a community-based housing and treatment system to supplant it. Critics argued that not enough state funding was devoted to the change.” http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1958.html
  92. AlpinerJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:49 pm
    Referring to Arizona, but yes mental health cuts should be re-evaluated. That would be common sense.
  93. JayceJanuary 13, 2011 at 12:48 pm
    Sounds like you want more healthcare Us on the left also believe that’s a good idea!
  94. lvogelJanuary 12, 2011 at 2:01 pm
    Question? Why would the average citizen need an assault rifle that can fire multiple bullets at one time?
  95. Josh PremakoJanuary 12, 2011 at 3:06 pm
    They don’t.
  96. SFC PerezJanuary 12, 2011 at 3:54 pm
    Once again only if zombies attacked or if Russians invade.
  97. Josh PremakoJanuary 12, 2011 at 5:58 pm
    And if they turn out to be invading Russian zombies…yikes.
  98. SFC PerezJanuary 12, 2011 at 7:41 pm
    HOLY CRAP! I’m gonna have nightmares and may need my Mark 19 near my night stand!
  99. NateJanuary 12, 2011 at 4:37 pm
    To defend Sants Clarits from becoming west new jersey! http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s14e09-its-a-jersey-thing
  100. SFC PerezJanuary 12, 2011 at 3:56 pm
    And most law enforcement persons will tell you the thought of facing a criminal with semi-automatic weapons scares the shyt out of them. Body armor can only stop so much and it still hurts like hell when you get hit, bruises nicely too )
  101. ReaderMamaJanuary 12, 2011 at 4:06 pm
    I thought that this was the kind of tragedy which Arizona’s “wild west” gun law was supposed to prevent. I guess allowing citizens to openly carry weapons isn’t that much of a deterrent to nut jobs committing crimes after all. As much as I dislike guns myself, I am inclined to agree that if you were to take guns away from Americans, there would be an increase in killings by knife, bomb, car and gasoline. Loughner could just as easily driven a car into that crowd and killed just as many people.
  102. AlpinerJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:50 pm
    Question RM, how many people attending the even Saturday were carrying guns?
  103. ReaderMamaJanuary 13, 2011 at 7:21 am
    At least one that I know of for sure . . .
  104. ReaderMamaJanuary 13, 2011 at 5:40 pm
    Here’s the link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576073921275131528.html
  105. SCHIZOJanuary 12, 2011 at 4:06 pm
    PFC – you, of all people on this blog, should know that “gun control” means hitting your target…
  106. SFC PerezJanuary 12, 2011 at 4:20 pm
    PFC? Um, let’s get my rank straight since I havent been a Private since 1993.
  107. ScottEJanuary 12, 2011 at 4:41 pm
    So Jeff (and Scott), you guys coming to Trivia tonight or what?
  108. KevitivityJanuary 12, 2011 at 4:52 pm
    Clearly, guns are NOT the problem. It’s a simplistic, knee-jerk reaction to blame guns, and common sense says that gun laws do nothing but disarm the good guys. This is why the gun debate in America is essentially over, dead, done with and burred. The ACTUAL elephant in the room, the real problem, is how we deal with mental health in America.
  109. Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogJanuary 12, 2011 at 5:50 pm
    Sorry, let me help you re-phrase your statement to be a bit more truthful “Clearly, guns are NOT the ONLY problem.” There, that helps… carry on.
  110. townbeetJanuary 12, 2011 at 5:52 pm
    “The ACTUAL elephant in the room, the real problem, is how we deal with mental health in America.” -yes, and perhaps we could have a “no-gun” registry for everyone who is identified by a professional to be a danger to him/herself and others. This guy was expelled from a CC for scarying the hell out students and instructors. It’s amazing people here still find that he should have the right to own a gun. Something is wrong with this society indeed : gun crazy!
  111. KevitivityJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:51 pm
    I would be fine with that. As long as we don’t attempt to disarm the good guys.
  112. AlpinerJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:52 pm
    I do not think that anyone on either side of the gun debate would argue that those people who have been diagnosed as mentally ill should not be able to buy a gun. Geez, in many states they are not allowed to drive.
  113. Bill ReynoldsJanuary 15, 2011 at 1:05 pm
    Here’s out we handle mentally handicapped folks… we ignore them even to the point that homeless mentally disabled folks are left to freeze under bridges and in our alleys. Meanwhile, we house thousands upon thousands of illegal criminals in our posh prisons and pass entitlements to illegals not in jail like there’s no tomorrow. Thanks to liberalism…
  114. Mike MJanuary 15, 2011 at 2:31 pm
    I know, I know, don’t feed the troll, but… HEY JACKASS – liberals didn’t cut funding for the mentally ill. Try getting your head out of your ass long enough to at least look where you’re going before opening your mouth!
  115. BrianJanuary 12, 2011 at 6:14 pm
    Who agrees with Dick Cheney’s Senate vote that plastic guns and cop killer bullets should be legal? 1988 I believe. Should citizens own hand grenades? With an extended magazine one could kill more people than a hand grenade. This whackjob had ammo for over 90 shots. Which one is a WMD?
  116. KevitivityJanuary 12, 2011 at 10:58 pm
    The term “cop killer” was created by the anti-gun lobby and referred to special coated hand gun rounds that could potentially pierce the body armor LEOs used. What the politicians didn’t mention was that virtually any common, freely available rifle round from a .30/30 on up has the same or more power. It was a pure political move *intended* to make pro civil rights, er I mean pro second amendment politicians look bad in the media. Cheney (a personal hero of mine) was right.
  117. The real King of SCVJanuary 12, 2011 at 7:38 pm
    O brother!! Nobody will be taking any guns from anyone ever. And this guy was a schizophrenic whack job and the only one to blame. Influenced by nothing more then his own brain. Everything else is pathetic talk.
  118. BrianJanuary 12, 2011 at 7:46 pm
    Pathetic is that there are more people upset over gay love or legalizing weed than something which is deadly force. American priorities are screwed up to say the least.
  119. KevitivityJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:04 pm
    I could not care less about gay issues, and drugs need to be legalized. But I need to mention that guns prevent more crime in the US than cause it – just think of all the armed police officers out there, the US military, NATO…. Guns are just a tool.
  120. BrianJanuary 13, 2011 at 12:47 am
    Very few LEOs carry extended clips or firepower like the civillians. The 2nd was written in the days of single shot muzzle loaders and the worst shootups required many soldiers to kill fewer people, ie: Harpers Ferry. It takes a vivid imagination to believe the intent would have held if they had the high tech weapons of today. I believe the founders wisdom would have limited the types of arms and accessories. Only 4 people voted for cop killer bullets and plastic guns. Would you want plastic guns in an airport these days? Everybody would get groped out of necessity. Armed within reasonable limits is not a bad idea. Excessive firepower should be locked in an armory at a suitable free fire area. Do you really need a 50 cal at home?
  121. KevitivityJanuary 13, 2011 at 11:08 am
    “Plastic gun” is another loaded term, Brian. They are also quite popular (Glock is a popular brand) and are easily detectable by normal screening methods because the gun barrel and firing mechanism is (of course) are metal. We have enough limits now – what we really need to do is focus on the REAL issue which is how we deal with mental health issues in the US.
  122. MikeJanuary 13, 2011 at 11:28 am
    Oh? They’re popular? Forget it then.
  123. NateJanuary 13, 2011 at 1:56 am
    “We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us.” ~President Obama
  124. Petz2January 13, 2011 at 6:30 am
    Some want to know how he got a gun and his ammo, Petz want to know where he got his values.
  125. Brenda ButlerJanuary 13, 2011 at 11:58 am
    Here is a perfect example of why gun-control is more of a detriment than a help: http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm It’s like blaming McDonald’s for obesity – “it’s not the consumer, it’s the big mac, stupid!”
  126. john adamsJanuary 13, 2011 at 12:00 pm
    I just wish there was ONE person in this group/ country that could tell me the law that could be inacted that would have prevented this tragedy. PLEASE help a brutha out and tell me the law that would work. Jeff?
  127. SFC PerezJanuary 13, 2011 at 1:44 pm
    Guy goes into a Walmart trying to buy ammo and is refused because is acting “erratic” and “weird.” He subsequently goes to a different Walmart where he makes a successful purchase of ammunition. Does Walmart not have a system in place where they can red flag someone for this similar to how they red flag someone for purchase of cold meds or passing bad checks? Once again, all Monday morning QB’ing but just thinking outloud. Maybe it wouldnt have stopped him but valid cracks(no library comments pls) that have come out with this case.
  128. John AdamsJanuary 13, 2011 at 2:23 pm
    The law says I could not buy alcohol before I turned 21? I never had a problem getting booze? That goes for weed and any other drug I wanted to enhance my weekend.
  129. NickelDimeJanuary 13, 2011 at 2:30 pm
    Therefore what? No more laws?
  130. John AdamsJanuary 13, 2011 at 3:11 pm
    No I think we should inact 15,000 more that will do absolutely no good. Like keeping guns a 1000 feet from an elected official. What MENSA member came up with that.
  131. SFC PerezJanuary 13, 2011 at 3:55 pm
    But Walmart creating a policy isnt a law, just a good business practice that helps the community and is responsible. I mean we can sit here and go around in circles like a Sit-n-Spin about what we can do better but I am not advocating new laws. In fact, alot of laws should either be revoked or consolidated since they cover the same subject 20 times over.
  132. ReaderMamaJanuary 13, 2011 at 5:21 pm
    Have you seen the “People of Walmart” photos? One wonders what someone has to do be thought “weird” and “erratic” in a Walmart after seeing those photos. (Check out http://www.peopleofwalmart.com if you’ve never had the pleasure.) The world would be a much better place if everyone would be proactive in preventing trouble whenever and wherever they can. Unfortunately, that’s something you can’t legislate. God bless that Walmart worker for doing what he/she could. And God bless the people who took the gunman down before he could do further damage. They would have been fairly helpless to do so had he used a car as a weapon instead.
  133. Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogJanuary 14, 2011 at 3:37 pm
    Great point regarding people of walmart Disagree on the notion of more damage using a car as a weapon being a given. Not going to be able to pick people off with a car at distance at the rate you can with a gun, easier to become alerted to someone trying plow through you with a car IMO. Not impossible to inflict mass casualties with a car but certainly a clunky method.
  134. ReaderMamaJanuary 15, 2011 at 6:42 pm
    I am sure that for someone trained as a sniper, a gun would be a more effective weapon. But most of these nut cases don’t have that kind of training. Let us not forget an 86 year-old man killed 10 people and injured a dozen more”unintentionally” when he plowed through Santa Monica’s farmer’s market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Russell_Weller He was reportedly heard to say when he exited the car, “Well if you saw me coming, why didn’t you get out of the way?”
  135. BrianJanuary 14, 2011 at 3:35 pm
    It should be noted that one guy was packing and he was about to draw down ON THE WRONG GUY! Only people shouting gave him pause to properly assess the situation. This is more scary than anything. This hero fantasy is just that, a fantasy!
  136. spineflower2January 15, 2011 at 5:17 pm
    Yeah, and just TRY to figure out the liability if he had taken a few shots… and then someone shot HIM to stop him, and…

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support